I think we missed this discussion at the meet-up but I'd like to bring it up here. To me having a status on all entities doesn't make much sense, and justing having a status on a load balancer (which would be a provisioning status) and a status on a member (which would be an operational status) are what makes sense because:
1) If an entity exists without a link to a load balancer it is purely just a database entry, so it would always be ACTIVE, but not really active in a technical sense. 2) If some of these entities become shareable then how does the status reflect that the entity failed to create on one load balancer but was successfully created on another. That logic could get overly complex. I think the best thing to do is to have the load balancer status reflect the provisioning status of all of its children. So if a health monitor is updated then the load balancer that health monitor is linked to would have its status changed to PENDING_UPDATE. Conversely, if a load balancer or any entities linked to it are changed and the load balancer's status is in a non-ACTIVE state then that update should not be allowed. Thoughts? Thanks, Brandon _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
